ArticleNeurosurgical review2025
A comparative study of robot-assisted and manual pore cranial drilling and drainage for spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To compare the therapeutic effects of robot-assisted pore cranial drilling and drainage and manual method in neurosurgery. A retrospective analysis of 89 patients with spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage who underwent cranial drilling and drainage from January 2023 to June 2024 compared robot-assisted (Group B) and manual (Group A) techniques. Assessment indicators included surgical duration, hematoma volume, clearance rates, drainage tubes, urokinase treatments, and complications. Statistical analysis used R with Mann-Whitney U or t-tests for continuous variables and chi-square or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for confounders, and subgroup analyses evaluated interactions based on baseline characteristics. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. The robot-assisted pore cranial drilling and drainage group showed superior outcomes in terms of postoperative hematoma volume, hematoma clearance rate on the first postoperative day, surgical duration, number of drainage tubes, and postoperative complications compared to the manual group, with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis of these indicators revealed that the LS mean for the hematoma clearance rate on the first postoperative day in the mid-line shift subgroup was 27.77, with a significant interaction effect (P < 0.05). Robot-assisted pore cranial drilling and drainage may offer advantages over manual techniques in hematoma clearance, operative efficiency, and complication rates for SSICH patients. However, further prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm its clinical effectiveness and broader applicability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40410570What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.